Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSINER, TRADE TAX U.P. LKO. versus S/S PADAM PRAKASH ANIL KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissiner, Trade Tax U.P. Lko. v. S/S Padam Prakash Anil Kumar - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 342 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 4849 (25 October 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no. (342) Of 1997.

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ...Applicant.

     Vs

S/S Padam Prakash Anil Kumar, Saharanpur. ... Opp. party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 09.06.1997 relating to assessment year 1994-95 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") was carrying on the business of Kirana goods.  He claimed that some of the items have a medicinal character and is accordingly liable to tax as a medicine.  It appears that the claim of the applicant had not been accepted.  Perusal of assessment order shows that the Assessing Authority had levied tax under the head imported Deshi Dawa for the period 1.4.1994 to 30.4.1994 @ 7.5% and imported Deshi Dawa for the period 1.5.1994 to 31.5.1995 @ 10%.  While imposing the aforesaid tax, no reason had been given.  First Appellate Authority up held the order of the Assessing Authority.  Tribunal vide impugned order stated that neither the Assessing Authority nor the First Appellate Authority have given any basis for levy of tax @ 7.5% and 10% respectively. Tribunal, further held that the aforesaid turnover for the period 1.5.1994 to 31.5.1995 is liable to tax @ 7.5% instead of 10%.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

In my view, order of Tribunal is not sustainable. Perusal of order of Tribunal shows that no reason whatsoever had been given for concluding that the turnover for the period 1.5.1994 to 31.5.1995 is liable to tax @ 7.5%.  Neither any notification had been referred nor item which are subject to the tax have been considered.  In my opinion, since none of the authorities have considered the items involved for tax, matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to reconsider the application of rate of tax on the aforesaid turnover which had been referred as imported Deshi Dawa.  Assessing Authority may give details of the items covered under the aforesaid notification and give reasons and consider that under which entry they are liable to tax.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment in the light of observations made above.

Dt:25.10.2005.

MZ/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.